The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

[J]

So....Ukrainian collusion is the new Russian collusion?

[The Romulan Republic]

So....Ukrainian collusion is the new Russian collusion?

The Russian collusion never went away. A political toady declaring total exoneration does not actually make one totally exonerated. Trump has just found a new way to try to rig elections via foreign interference.

Its a bit different, though, in that in this case Trump wasn't merely willingly receiving someone else's offered aid (which was all that could ever be proved regarding Russia) and then give them political favours- he was aggressively, personally soliciting/trying to extort their aid. Also, to the Ukraine's credit, there's no evidence to my knowledge that they actually took him up on it. Moreover we have Trump, personally, on the record doing it.

So yeah, its collusion all over again, but actually arguably worse, and more importantly, easier to prove against Dickless in a court of law/impeachment case.

[Gandalf]

The whistleblower report's been released too.

Finally, we've got the fucking smoking gun, and everyone (or everyone but the Trump loyalists) seems to agree that it IS a smoking gun.

Yeah, they'll stick to him until the bitter end for the most part. The party is pretty heavily invested in Trump, so it's going to be a lot of stony faces.

[Broomstick]

Trump's primary opponents (minor as they are in the party) have endorsed impeachment as of yesterday, with Weld even going so far as to suggest Trump may have committed treason and could receive the death penalty (note: I believe that he is legally in the wrong on this one).

Legally wrong on what? That Trump committed treason or on the penalty for treason?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Is anyone else listening to the Congressional Testimony right now ,? It. Is. SAVAGE!

I actually feel bad for the poor director they are grilling. You can tell he is out of his element and not trying to be combative, he honestly doesn’t know how to and a lot of the questions being pitched at him.

Also.. is it just me, or when it comes to radio, do all republicans sound the same?? Like they have this whiny nasilly quality to their voice.

[FaxModem1]

For fun, take a drink every time the word 'unprecedented ' is used. I guarantee you'll have liver failure by the end of the day.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's primary opponents (minor as they are in the party) have endorsed impeachment as of yesterday, with Weld even going so far as to suggest Trump may have committed treason and could receive the death penalty (note: I believe that he is legally in the wrong on this one).

Legally wrong on what? That Trump committed treason or on the penalty for treason?

That Trump committed treason, obviously (death is one possible, though not the only possible, penalty for treason in US law). Treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States (which Trump did not do here) or offering aid and comfort to its enemies (which the Ukraine isn't). Further, it has by legal precedent only been used in cases of aiding someone the US is actually at war with, so even applying it to Russiagate would be dubious at best.

Its very very criminal, but unambiguously not Treason, even less than Russiagate was.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is anyone else listening to the Congressional Testimony right now ,? It. Is. SAVAGE!

I actually feel bad for the poor director they are grilling. You can tell he is out of his element and not trying to be combative, he honestly doesn’t know how to and a lot of the questions being pitched at him.

Also.. is it just me, or when it comes to radio, do all republicans sound the same?? Like they have this whiny nasilly quality to their voice.

The nasilly whine of rich white male entitlement?

Here's the testimony: https://youtube.com/watch?v=90GpI_kJVW0

And the whistleblower complaint: https://cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/rea ... index.html

Dear Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff:
I am reporting an "urgent concern" in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.
In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President' s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters," consistent with the definition of an"urgent concern" in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.
I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes.
If a classification marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific information it pertains.
I. The 25 July Presidential phone call
Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I do not know which side initiated the call. This was the first publicly acknowledged call between the two leaders since a brief congratulatory call after Mr. Zelenskyy won the presidency on 21 April.
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;
assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine , with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and
meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr. Lutsenko made a series of public allegations-many of which he later walked back -- about the Biden family's activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials' purported involvement in the 2016 U.S. election, and the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional context.)
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a "discussion ongoing" with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.
The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):
"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States."
Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were discussed.
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call -- a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a "routine" call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.
In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call.
I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above.
II. Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call
In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced -- as is customary -- by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.
White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.
Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.
I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.
III. Ongoing concerns
On 26 July, a day after the call, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy and a variety of Ukrainian political figures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. officials, Ambassadors Volker and Sandland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to "navigate" the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy.
I also learned from multiple U.S. officials that, on or about 2 August, Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Madrid to meet with one of President Zelenskyy' s advisers, Andriy Yermak. The U.S. officials characterized this meeting, which was not reported publicly at the time, as a "direct follow-up" to the President's call with Mr. Zelenskyy about the "cases" they had discussed.
Separately, multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelenskyy advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.
I do not know whether those officials met or spoke with Mr. Giuliani, but I was told separately by multiple U.S. officials that Mr. Yermak and Mr. Bakanov intended to travel to Washington in mid-August.
On 9 August, the President told reporters: "I think [President Zelenskyy] is going to make a deal with President Putin, and he will be invited to the White House. And we look forward to seeing him. He's already been invited to the White House, and he wants to come. And I think he will. He's a very reasonable guy. He wants to see peace in Ukraine, and I think he will be coming very soon, actually."
IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call
Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials -- most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko -- made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current and former
U.S. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:
that they possessed evidence that Ukrainian officials -- namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem Sytnyk and Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko -- had "interfered" in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv;
that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko' s organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016 U.S. election; and
that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on whose board the former Vice President's son, Hunter, sat.
In several public comments, Mr. Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.
The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the first round of Ukraine's presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko's political patron, President Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. Zelenskyy in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr. Zelenskyy had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General. On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. Zelenskyy by a landslide. See Enclosure for additional information.
It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in Warsaw in mid-February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani. to
On 25 April in an interview with Fox News, the President called Mr. Lutsenko's claims "big" and "incredible" and stated that the Attorney General "would want to see this."
On or about 29 April, I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department officials for "consultations" and would most likely be removed from her position.
Around the same time, I also learned from a U.S. official that "associates" of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.
On 6 May, the State Department announced that Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv "as planned."
However, several U.S. officials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from Mr. Lutsenko's allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was "removed ... because she was part of the efforts against the President."
On 9 May, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the President in his 2020 reelection bid.
In his multitude of public statements leading up to and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that he was focused on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family. 12
On the afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip.
A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. Zelenskyy was "surrounded by enemies of the [U.S.] President... and of the United States."
On 11 May, Mr. Lutsenko met for two hours with President-elect Zelenskyy, according to a public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he had told Mr. Zelenskyy that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General.
Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani's circumvention of national security decisionmaking processes to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the President. These officials also told me:
that State Department officials, including Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giulianiin an attempt to "contain the damage" to U.S. national security; and
that Ambassadors Volker and Sandland during this time period met with members of the new Ukrainian administration and, in addition to discussing policy matters, sought to help Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were receiving from official U.S. channels on the-one-hand, and from Mr. Giuliani on the other.
During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to " play ball" on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into early July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.) See Enclosure for additional information.
Shortly after President Zelenskyy' s inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine's Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar Kholodnytskyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. Kholodnytskyy and Mr. Telizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill.
On 13 June, the President told ABC' s George Stephanopoulos that he would accept damaging information on his political rivals from a foreign government.
On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: "New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery of Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton people."
In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.
ENCLOSURE: Classified appendix
(U) CLASSIFIED APPENDIX
(U) Supplementary classified information is provided as follows:
(U) Additional information related to Section II
According to multiple White House officials I spoke with, the transcript of the President's call with President Zelenskyy was placed into a computer system managed directly by the National Security Council (NSC) Directorate for Intelligence Programs. This is a standalone computer system reserved for codeword-level intelligence information , such as covert action. According to information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs. According to White House officials I spoke with, this was "not the first time" under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive — rather than national security sensitive — information .
(U) Additional information related to Section IV
[Redaction]
I would like to expand upon two issues mentioned in Section IV that might have a connection with the overall effort to pressure the Ukrainian leadership. As I do not know definitively whether the below-mentioned decisions are connected to the broader efforts I describe, I have chosen to include them in the classified annex. If they indeed represent genuine policy deliberations and decisions formulated to advance U.S. foreign policy and national security, one might be able to make a reasonable case that the facts are classified
I learned from U.S. officials that, on or around 14 May, the President instructed Vice President Pence to cancel his planned travel to Ukraine to attend President Zelenskyy' s inauguration on 20 May; Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the delegation instead. According to these officials, it was also "made clear" to them that the President did not want to meet with Mr. Zelenskyy until he saw how Zelenskyy "chose to act" in office. I do not know how this guidance was communicated, or by whom. I also do not know whether this action was connected with the broader understanding, described in the unclassified letter, that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to "play ball'' on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani,
On 18 July, an Office of Management and Budget (0MB) official informed Departments and Agencies that the President "earlier that month" had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. Neither OMB nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on 23 July and 26 July, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President, but they still were unaware of a policy rationale. As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it.

Also, today the Dems officially crossed the 218 votes threshold, meaning the majority of the House now supports some kind of impeachment proceedings. Given that, and the evidence now available, it is almost a guarantee that Articles of Impeachment will pass. Pelosi is apparently urging a focus on the latest developments to move ahead as quickly as possible (finally), aiming for impeachment by late fall.

Its happening, folks. Its finally fucking happening.

Also, fun story, apparently a bunch of Right-wing news outlets came out quoting an old statement by James Comey saying that he did not support impeachment and that the voters should be responsible. Comey quickly came out and corrected the record, saying basically that after recent events the House and Senate would be in danger of violating their own oaths if they didn't act.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Welp this is fun. NPR has a story which gave a hint into the unhinged mind of Trump. The full article can be found here: [html=https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/76458254 ... raine-call]NPR STORY[/html]

But this is the part worth noting

According to an account in the Los Angeles Times, Trump told a private gathering of U.S. United Nations staff Thursday in New York, "I want to know who's the person, who's the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that's close to a spy," Trump said

"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."

[The Romulan Republic]

Just in case anyone still had doubts about Trump's tyrant aspirations, or why this son of a bitch needs to be impeached.

[The Romulan Republic]

Impeachment vote count up to 225. That's damn near every House Democrat (I presume that's also counting Justin Amash, the sole Republican for impeachment, now Independent).

Its too early to celebrate, of course (I hope to God they've got someone sane between Trump and the nuclear launch codes if it really looks like he's going to go down), but my current sig is starting to feel really prescient right now.

[Gandalf]

Its too early to celebrate, of course (I hope to God they've got someone sane between Trump and the nuclear launch codes if it really looks like he's going to go down), but my current sig is starting to feel really prescient right now.

As was revealed about Nixon's time drunkenly ordering nuclear strikes, there's a backstop or two.

[PainRack]

Trump's primary opponents (minor as they are in the party) have endorsed impeachment as of yesterday, with Weld even going so far as to suggest Trump may have committed treason and could receive the death penalty (note: I believe that he is legally in the wrong on this one).

Legally wrong on what? That Trump committed treason or on the penalty for treason?

That Trump committed treason, obviously (death is one possible, though not the only possible, penalty for treason in US law). Treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States (which Trump did not do here) or offering aid and comfort to its enemies (which the Ukraine isn't). Further, it has by legal precedent only been used in cases of aiding someone the US is actually at war with, so even applying it to Russiagate would be dubious at best.

Its very very criminal, but unambiguously not Treason, even less than Russiagate was.

It is a sad day that John Brown can be tried for treason against Virginia but actively destroying the democracy of the US in collusion with foreign powers cannot....

[The Romulan Republic]

Legally wrong on what? That Trump committed treason or on the penalty for treason?

That Trump committed treason, obviously (death is one possible, though not the only possible, penalty for treason in US law). Treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States (which Trump did not do here) or offering aid and comfort to its enemies (which the Ukraine isn't). Further, it has by legal precedent only been used in cases of aiding someone the US is actually at war with, so even applying it to Russiagate would be dubious at best.

Its very very criminal, but unambiguously not Treason, even less than Russiagate was.

It is a sad day that John Brown can be tried for treason against Virginia but actively destroying the democracy of the US in collusion with foreign powers cannot....

Perhaps, but by law that is in fact the case. Brown did commit Treason, after all- he levied war against the State of Virginia (and indeed the United States). Morally-justified Treason*, perhaps, but still Treason. Trump by law has not committed Treason, and I'd be really wary of expanding the definition of a death-penalty offense for political reasons.


*I'd be interested to know if anyone has tried lobbying the Presidency to issue Brown a posthumous pardon. Would be a nice fuck-you to the Confederate apologist crowd, at least.

[The Romulan Republic]

And of course the Trumper trolls are now arguing that impeachment is happening to distract from the Epstein case- by which of course they mean "Clinton Pedophilia Ring".

[The Romulan Republic]

New poll numbers on impeachment:

https://businessinsider.com/poll-americ ... ack-2019-9

Democrats in Congress have launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower complaint centered on a phone call in which Trump asked Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump's political rivals.
Forty-five percent of respondents to a SurveyMonkey Audience poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday said they believed that the House of Representatives should impeach the president.
A majority — 53% — backed the launch of an impeachment inquiry in the House.
This may come at the peril of Democrats: A plurality thought this might hurt them electorally.
We also asked: "What should the consequences be for a public official who encourages a foreign power to intervene in an upcoming domestic election in their favor?"
Forty-nine percent said such an official should be removed. Just 6% said that wouldn't warrant any action.
Most Americans in a new Insider poll supported launching an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, but they worried about the repercussions.

A formal impeachment inquiry into Trump was announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday. It came in the wake of a whistleblower complaint from an intelligence official alleging that Trump had asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump initially acknowledged discussing his political rival in a phone call with the Ukrainian leader, and the White House on Wednesday released a summary of the call that confirmed it. Trump has denied wrongdoing in connection to the call.

When asked: "Impeachment is the first step in the process of removing a president from office. Do you think the House of Representatives should impeach President Trump?"

Respondents were considerably more in favor than has been seen in other polling recently. It's unclear, however, whether this is a result of sampling, phrasing, or a genuine shift in opinion.

Overall, 45% of respondents supported impeachment, with 29% of respondents saying "strongly."
Overall, 30% of respondents opposed impeachment, with 20% of respondents saying "strongly."
Twenty-five percent did not know or neither supported nor opposed impeachment.
The poll was conducted Wednesday and Thursday, after Pelosi's announcement but as the news was still developing. Forty-one percent of respondents identified as a Democratic likely voter, compared with 31% who identified as a Republican likely voter. The rest said they were unlikely to vote in a 2020 caucus or primary or declined to say.

Majorities think launching an inquiry is the right thing to do, and most aren't familiar with the Ukraine situation
The numbers become clearer when it comes to merely launching a formal impeachment inquiry, as Pelosi announced. An impeachment inquiry is an investigation that the House will use to decide whether to impeach the president.

We asked: "Do you believe launching a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump for soliciting foreign interference in a US election is the right thing to do?"

33% said "definitely yes."
20% said "probably yes."
15% said "probably not."
18% said "definitely not."
That's a significant majority in favor of launching the investigation. Overall, Americans are generally unfamiliar with the incident in question.

We also asked: "How familiar would you say you are with the situation stemming from President Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky related to Democratic candidate Joe Biden?"

Just 33% of respondents said they were "extremely" or "very" familiar.

If Trump is found to have done what the whistleblower said he did, large majorities of Americans back serious consequences
Respondents were asked, "What should the consequences be for a public official who encourages a foreign power to intervene in an upcoming domestic election in their favor?" before they were asked about more in-depth detail of the impeachment inquiry.

The results were squarely unambiguous:

Merely 6% said "I do not think that warrants any action."
11% said "I think the matter should be looked into but don't see any immediate issue."
19% said "I think that merits investigation and possibly censure, penalties or discipline."
49% said "I think that merits investigation and possibly removal from office."
That majority in favor of serious consequences for that hypothetical action held among those who said their political beliefs were conservative: Twenty-six percent said it'd merit investigation and possible discipline, and 25% said it'd merit investigation and possible removal.

There's a chance this blows back on Democrats electorally
Democrats have cast their lot in with impeachment, but do so at their peril.

While majorities in the poll said launching an impeachment inquiry was the right thing to do, fewer saw electoral upside for Democrats in doing so.

We asked: "Do you believe launching a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump will overall work out in Democrats' favor electorally?"

10% said "definitely would."
22% said "probably would."
24% said "probably would not."
19% said "definitely would not."
This paints an interesting series of battle lines for the 753 respondents who knew their opinion about both the rectitude and electoral peril of an impeachment inquiry.

Here's how they viewed the exercise:

38% thought an inquiry was the right thing to do and would help Democrats electorally.
19% thought an inquiry was the right thing to do but would hurt Democrats electorally.
7% thought an inquiry is the wrong thing to do but would help Democrats electorally.
37% thought an inquiry was the wrong thing to do and would hurt Democrats electorally.
Read more:

A formal impeachment inquiry has been launched: Here's everything we know about the whistleblower complaint and Trump's phone call with Ukraine's president

30 Republican Senators might vote to impeach Trump if the ballot were secret, GOP source says

Trump aides quickly regretted publishing the Ukraine call that has intensified calls for his impeachment, report says

SurveyMonkey Audience polls from a national sample balanced by census data of age and gender. Respondents are incentivized to complete surveys through charitable contributions. Generally speaking, digital polling tends to skew toward people with access to the internet. SurveyMonkey Audience doesn't try to weight its sample based on race or income. Total 1,096 respondents collected September 25-26, 2019, a margin of error plus or minus 3.04 percentage points with a 95% confidence level. Download the respondent-level data here.

53% support, and it'll likely rise further. 49% say that if an official committed the acts of which Trump is accused, they should be removed from office (only 6% said that no action should be taken). 45% currently support Trump's impeachment, about a ten point jump from pre-Ukraine scandal polls.

Which shows that Pelosi had it backward all along- she wanted to wait until there was majority support before risking impeachment. But what we see here is that once the Democrats start leading, the public will follow- just as it did with Nixon's impeachment.

[Broomstick]

Welp this is fun. NPR has a story which gave a hint into the unhinged mind of Trump. The full article can be found here: [html=https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/76458254 ... raine-call]NPR STORY[/html]

But this is the part worth noting

According to an account in the Los Angeles Times, Trump told a private gathering of U.S. United Nations staff Thursday in New York, "I want to know who's the person, who's the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that's close to a spy," Trump said

"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."

This has been directly compared in the US TV media to Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Interesting that the wiki article already made reference to Trump from a 2017, and has added this most recent incident.

My fear is that some of the more extreme elements will take this as inspiration for (yet another) mass shooting in this country.

[Broomstick]

Legally wrong on what? That Trump committed treason or on the penalty for treason?

That Trump committed treason, obviously (death is one possible, though not the only possible, penalty for treason in US law). Treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States (which Trump did not do here) or offering aid and comfort to its enemies (which the Ukraine isn't). Further, it has by legal precedent only been used in cases of aiding someone the US is actually at war with, so even applying it to Russiagate would be dubious at best.

Its very very criminal, but unambiguously not Treason, even less than Russiagate was.

It is a sad day that John Brown can be tried for treason against Virginia but actively destroying the democracy of the US in collusion with foreign powers cannot....

Treason is not required for impeachment (or removal from office). So Trump may still suffer consequences.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for defying Congress. Nixon for the Watergate coverup - or would have been, if he hadn't resigned. Clinton for getting a blow-job and lying about it. None of that was treason as defined in the constitution. What would be unprecedented would be a PotUS actually being removed from office, which has not yet happened, but treason is not required for that, either.

[Crossroads Inc.]

So Trump apparently use one of the nations most secretive computer servers to hide documents.
NPR

The whistleblower released Thursday charges that White House officials attempted to limit access to potentially damaging details about President Trump's call with Ukraine's president by using a classified system reserved for highly sensitive information.

If this allegation is true, former National Security Council officials say, it would represent a highly unusual misuse of procedures that were created to keep America's most important intelligence secrets safe.

According to the complaint, senior White House officials intervened to "lock down" records of the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. To do this, the whistleblower said, the rough transcript was loaded into an electronic system meant for classified information "of an especially sensitive nature."

"I have never seen it complaint in my time in the White House, and I doubt that other presidents have engaged in this, although you never know what happened in the Nixon White House," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told NPR's Here & Now on Thursday. Panetta also previously served as the director of the CIA and White House chief of staff, all in Democratic administrations.

[The Romulan Republic]

So Trump apparently use one of the nations most secretive computer servers to hide documents.
NPR

The whistleblower released Thursday charges that White House officials attempted to limit access to potentially damaging details about President Trump's call with Ukraine's president by using a classified system reserved for highly sensitive information.

If this allegation is true, former National Security Council officials say, it would represent a highly unusual misuse of procedures that were created to keep America's most important intelligence secrets safe.

According to the complaint, senior White House officials intervened to "lock down" records of the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. To do this, the whistleblower said, the rough transcript was loaded into an electronic system meant for classified information "of an especially sensitive nature."

"I have never seen it complaint in my time in the White House, and I doubt that other presidents have engaged in this, although you never know what happened in the Nixon White House," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told NPR's Here & Now on Thursday. Panetta also previously served as the director of the CIA and White House chief of staff, all in Democratic administrations.

Reports have come out that other materials were similarly concealed, including possibly calls with Putin and the leader of Saudi Arabia.

The Kremlin has now come out saying that it hopes Trump won't release the conversations between Trump and Putin:

https://nytimes.com/2019/09/27/world/eu ... calls.html

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/201 ... rump-calls

Just a reminder that no, Russia-gate never went away.

[The Romulan Republic]

A former adviser to Romney and McCain claims he was told by a Republican Senator that if the Senate held a secret vote, 30 Republicans would vote to convict Trump (thus easily crossing the threshold of 2/3rds of the Senate to remove him from office):

https://msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-repor ... 9890117795

Mike Murphy, Fmr. Senior adviser to Mitt Romney and John McCain, tells MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that "'One Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump."

If true, then conviction might actually be a possibility. But it also underscores just how cowardly and morally bankrupt these Republicans are. They know Trump is as dirty as Satan's asshole, but they won't vote against him publicly because they're too afraid to do the right thing. Pathetic.

It puts Moscow Mitch in a beautiful catch-22, though. If he holds a secret vote, he risks Trump being convicted. If he holds a public vote so the Republican Senators are intimidated into toeing the party line, then they'll have to vote to acquit an obviously-guilty Trump in the public eye.

[Solauren]

Hold a secret vote. Then he can't be held accountable for the fact a few people broke the party line.
He could just go "I had no proof!". and then they have to prove otherwise.

[Ralin]

...Is there a mechanism for Congress having secret, binding votes on things like laws and impeachments?

[Broomstick]

There is the voice vote - the members vote "aye" or "nay" more or less simultaneously and it's the judgement of the presiding officer which side won. Who votes how is not recorded for such votes.

But I don't recall it ever being used where a 2/3 majority is required (how could you affirm that 2/3 or more voted for an outcome if you didn't perform formal counting?), and with Pence potentially as the presiding officer of the Senate....

[The Romulan Republic]

There is the voice vote - the members vote "aye" or "nay" more or less simultaneously and it's the judgement of the presiding officer which side won. Who votes how is not recorded for such votes.

But I don't recall it ever being used where a 2/3 majority is required (how could you affirm that 2/3 or more voted for an outcome if you didn't perform formal counting?), and with Pence potentially as the presiding officer of the Senate....

Yeah, I don't think you could realistically use the voice vote for something where 2/3rds is required, not unless it was damn near unanimous one way or the other, and if Pence is presiding, we know who he'd say won- and we know that people would believe or disbelieve it based on their pre-existing political allegiances.